Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-08-2014, 09:26 AM   #181
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,357
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Cool. I would suggest that a downsize of the K-3 image for comparison purposes is a waste of time. The question, after all, is whether more pixels are worth it, not whether throwing pixels away looks the same.
Ultimately it does not really matter whether you upscale or downscale - in real life you inevitably end up downscaling nearly all of the time. My interest was whether in that case the extra resolution somehow makes any practical difference. Actual comparison example shots, such as those that Rondec'd posted, are hard to come by.
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
In any case, the way I am reading your comments in this thread is that for your personal standards and needs any additional pixels are superfluous. In other words, you are happy with your most recent camera purchase. That is a good thing. I shot for seven years with my K10D and did not upgrade until the K-3 because the improvements in the K20D and K-7 did not justify the expense and the QA problems with the K-5 scared me off.
I've had a K-5ii for just over a year now and I'm perfectly happy with it. I still use my old K-7 but its noise and AF accuracy were starting to annoy me. As for any future upgrades - I would happily trade better sensitivity and less noise for any extra resolution beyond 16Mpx.

10-08-2014, 10:31 AM   #182
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,390
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Ultimately it does not really matter whether you upscale or downscale - in real life you inevitably end up downscaling nearly all of the time. My interest was whether in that case the extra resolution somehow makes any practical difference. Actual comparison example shots, such as those that Rondec'd posted, are hard to come by.
I've had a K-5ii for just over a year now and I'm perfectly happy with it. I still use my old K-7 but its noise and AF accuracy were starting to annoy me. As for any future upgrades - I would happily trade better sensitivity and less noise for any extra resolution beyond 16Mpx.
There's a lot of us in that boat. Sometimes I lose my extra resolution in the K-3 when I correct for noise. NR costs resolution.

Last edited by normhead; 10-08-2014 at 11:17 AM.
10-08-2014, 11:20 AM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
With the K-3 at 2500 lw/ph, if the printer is capable of priming that fine, each visible line would be .4064 mm
On a K5II2 at 2200 lw/ph it would be .4628mm

.4628-.4064=.0564

So people who are telling you it makes a difference are telling you they can see difference of 6/100 of a millimetre... ya right.

An inch is 25.4 mm. If you printer prints at 300 dpi the finest detail you can print is 25.4 /300= .08mm
To be short, if I go to photozone and look on best lenses:

K5 get a little more than 2700 lw/ph
Nikon D7000 16MP APSC sensor get up to 2900 lw/ph (weaker low pass filter ?).
Nex7 24MP APSC sensor with low pass filter get up 3675 lw/ph.

That a pratical increase 36% increase in resolution at least, one can get from a good 24MP APSC sensor compared to 16MP K5. (likely the Nex7 has a weak low pass filter than K5) and it seems your numbers are not accurate at all.

This mean that on 40" print you can distinguish up tp 3 line per mm on a K5, and up to 4 line per mm on a Nex7. I'd suspect the K3 without any low pass filter to be marginaly better.

As it scaled pretty well from the theory to the practice from 16 to 24, you can deduce your 36MP D800E is going to get up to 5400 in best case scenario with a little more than 5 lines per mm.

300 dpi the upper limit to what a eyes can distinguish is a little more than 10 lines per mm.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-08-2014 at 11:30 AM.
10-08-2014, 11:57 AM   #184
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,390
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
To be short, if I go to photozone and look on best lenses:

K5 get a little more than 2700 lw/ph
Nikon D7000 16MP APSC sensor get up to 2900 lw/ph (weaker low pass filter ?).
Nex7 24MP APSC sensor with low pass filter get up 3675 lw/ph.

That a pratical increase 36% increase in resolution at least, one can get from a good 24MP APSC sensor compared to 16MP K5. (likely the Nex7 has a very weak low pass filter) and it seems your numbers are not accurate at all.
I took my numbers form Imagine Resources. Photozone probably hasn't tested a Pentax product in over two years and test a paltry number of lenses last time they did test which was on a K-5. Imagine resources at least tries to test all cameras with the same lens to try and come up with some kind of testing consistency. Your method really doesn't tell us anything but who makes the best lenses for their camera. You may not like my numbers, but that in no way means yours are better. You might want to do a bit more research on this. I used to rely heavily on photozone, and still do, for lens characteristics. But they've never tested a lens on a K-5ii, a K-5IIs or a K-3. Their info is getting to be a little dated. Citing a D7000, now that's really dated.

QuoteQuote:
That a pratical increase 36% increase in resolution at least, one can get from a good 24MP APSC sensor compared to 16MP K5. (likely the Nex7 has a very weak low pass filter) and it seems your numbers are not accurate at all.
From Imagine Resource
QuoteQuote:
In camera JPEGs of our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,850 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and about 2,750 in the vertical direction (some might argue for over 2,850 lines, but aliasing artifacts begin to interfere before then), with extinction of the pattern occurring between 3,400 and 3,600 lines. Adobe Camera Raw 6.6 showed similar results, perhaps slightly higher vertical resolution, but produced more color moire. Use these numbers to compare with other cameras of similar resolution, or use them to see just what higher resolution can mean in terms of potential detail.
Sony NEX-7 Review - Exposure

QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart reveals sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,700 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about the same 2,700 lph in the vertical direction in best quality JPEGs. Complete extinction of the pattern didn't occur until just past 3,000 lines in both directions. We weren't able to resolve more with an Adobe Camera Raw conversion, though complete extinction of the pattern was extended to about 3,800 lines.
Pentax K-3 Review - Exposure

I tend to use Imaging Resources for this kind of thing because they use the same lenses, where possible the Sigma 70 macro, so you're comparing sensors. not lenses.
K-5ii

QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,200 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and about 2,100 in the vertical direction in best quality JPEGs. Complete extinction didn't occur until about 2,700 lines in both directions. We were able to resolve a little more with an Adobe Camera Raw conversion, about 2,300 lines in the horizontal direction and about 2,200 in the vertical, and complete extinction of the pattern was extended to about 3,000 lines.
Pentax K-5 II Review - Exposure

2300 lw/ph horizontal compared to 2850 is a 23% increase.

I like Klaus' work over at Photozone but for comparative sensor's it's not an appropriate format. And he says so himself. At least the folks at IR have made an effort to create a level playing field for sensor comparisons. You can debate how effective they've been, but at least they tried. Klaus makes no such effort.

The numbers I picked above were very ball park to make a point. If you want to do the math with exact numbers , feel free. I await your results.


Last edited by normhead; 10-08-2014 at 12:08 PM.
10-08-2014, 12:07 PM   #185
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I took my numbers form Imagine Resources. Photozone probably hasn't tested a Pentax product in over two years and test a paltry number of lenses last time they did test which was on a K-5. Imagine resources at least tries to test all cameras with the same lens to try and come up with some kind of testing consistency. Your method really doesn't tell us anything but who makes the best lenses for their camera. You may not like my numbers, but that in no way means yours are better. You might want to do a bit more research on this. I used to rely heavily on photozone, and still do, for lens characteristics. But they've never tested a lens on a K-5ii, a K-5IIs or a K-3. Their info is getting to be a little dated. Citing a D7000, now that's really dated.



From Imagine Resource


Sony NEX-7 Review - Exposure



Pentax K-3 Review - Exposure

I tend to use Imaging Resources for this kind of thing because they use the same lenses, where possible the Sigma 70 macro, so you're comparing sensors. not lenses.
K-5ii



Pentax K-5 II Review - Exposure

2300 lw/ph horizontal compared to 2850 is a 23% increase.

I like Klaus' work over at Photozone but for comparative sensor's it's not an appropriate format. At least the folks at IR have made an effort to create a level playing field for sensor comparisons. You can debate how effective they've been, but at least they tried. Klaus makes no such effort.
Keeping the same lens from sensor to sensor work only if the lens outresolve by a huge marging all sensor so the lens quality do not play any role in the comparisons.

If some lens manage to get 3675 on a Nex, then the sensor can go up to that. One example is enough if the example is accurate to know the sensor can at least go up to that level.

Now funilly we go from 2300 to 2850 instead of 2200 to 2500. that still amost double the difference you compute in your computations.

I guess the number difference is how image resource and photozone put the limit. Photozone get higher number but they are consistent, like apparently imaging resource. What would be wrong then is to give lw/ph without citing then the source or compare between different sources.

As for K5 vs D7000 vs K5-II they all use the same sensor so there no real point to say this old blabla. This is same technology, should get similar results.

Still I think this is not the right way to approach it. I still think that a K5 if you keep all the pixels is already pretty good up to really large sized print. At 40" the 0.4mm you compute indicate something not really satisfactory if you look near but that not typically you do out of a 40" print. Even through, honestly if I were to do 40" and more prints all the time I would have think serioulsy of getting a D800E/D810/D800 and if made a living out of that, of a 645Z. That because I suspect I might do a 30" or 40" print only from time to time if any that I don't care much what the K5 does in thoses settings. Knowing that it will more than good enough if you don't look from near distance is more than good with me.

Now the question is how often you crop, how much and what size you'd want to get your prints. If one is heavily cropping (like for wildlife), he might get thoses 0.4mm results not at 40" print that are pretty uncommon, but 20" that is much more common. This is the size of an Art book double page, or of a 24" monitor screen. There 0.4mm would be more visible and a little more disapointing.

So it is just a question of what you expect, what you do, not of absolutes.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-08-2014 at 12:34 PM.
10-08-2014, 12:13 PM   #186
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,390
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Keeping the same lens from sensor to sensor work only if the lens outresolve by a huge marging all sensor so the lens quality do not play any role in the comparisons.

If some lens manage to get 3675 on a Nex, then the sensor can go up to that. One example is enough is enough if the example is accurate.

Now funilly we go from 2300 to 2850 instead of 2200 to 2500. that still amost double the difference you compute in your computations.

I guess the number difference is how image resource and photozone put the limit. Photozone get higher number but they are consistent, like apparently imaging resource. What would be wrong then is to give lw/ph without citing then the source or compare between different sources.

As for K5 vs D7000 vs K5-II they all use the same sensor so there no real point to say this old blabla. This is same technology, should get similar results.
QuoteQuote:
If some lens manage to get 3675 on a Nex, then the sensor can go up to that. One example is enough is enough if the example is accurate.
You're not getting it... Klaus says right on his site...you cannot use this Photzone data for comparing sensors.. I'm willing to bet he doesn't even use the same version of the testing software two years apart. You're not thinking this through here. When you lift data from someone's site.. surely you have to take under advisement the limitations in the testing procedure noted by the tester.

All Klaus guarantees is that the tests are constant for that sensor, with the lenses tested, with that camera body.

Quick... someone say "Don't call me Shirely""

Last edited by normhead; 10-08-2014 at 01:47 PM.
10-08-2014, 03:23 PM   #187
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,645
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Well that's easy. NO the extra pixels are not worth it in any meaningful sense except for pixel peeping and bragging rights. People will try and imagine some impossible situation where it makes a difference, but that's just nonsense. It's not enough. But, 27 AF points is nice, I use then constantly, not of interest to single point spot focusers at all, but in landscape a lot of the time it saves me from having to go to manual focus. The 8 frames per second is nice for wildlife. Back when the D800 came out we had a rash of people claiming they needed more resolution.. but 16-24 Mp just isn't it. And now that we have 24 Mp APS-c, I'm not sure 36 Mp FF is it either.

Imagine the finest line visible on a 40 inch wide picture. That would be 1016 mm.
With the K-3 at 2500 lw/ph, if the printer is capable of priming that fine, each visible line would be .4064 mm

On a K5II2 at 2200 lw/ph it would be .4628mm

.4628-.4064=.0564

So people who are telling you it makes a difference are telling you they can see difference of 6/100 of a millimetre... ya right.

An inch is 25.4 mm. If you printer prints at 300 dpi the finest detail you can print is 25.4 /300= .08mm


Your printer can't print fine enough to print the difference between the two. .08 is already bigger than the difference between them. How does getting finer help?

I'm using 40 inches for my reference. For smaller prints it just gets more ridiculous.

There are instances where that .06 mm makes the image look better, and there may be instances where it makes the image just look more cluttered.

At this point the MP race is insane. People have to talk about "new technologies" to try and make a case, unless you're talking image sizes well over 40 inches.
People who talk about differences they can see at this kind of scale are just inflating their egos by messing with you.
Most of it comes down to me saying I can't see a difference and them saying "well you don't know what to look for", or "after you've seen thousands of images like me you begin to notice the difference"

They pretend they're talking about IQ, but what they are really saying is "I am so much more sophisticated than you I can see things you can't." They're lucky they can't be slapped upside the head over the internet. The comeback to that line of course is, "You're imagining that based on your pre knowledge of which is which" You can say that, but it doesn't sink in as much as being slapped upside the head might. The chances of any operant conditional taking hold are minimal, on the internet.
Since two years I'm on reading glasses, so my fine detail vanishing......

My printer, HP B9180 prints at 240 dpi, according to my settings in via Lightroom. It makes dots as many as you want, but I guess that more fine detail isn't shown. Maybe with a new advanced printer, since the HP is from 2007 technology.

So the differences will be even smaller for me and for those who don't print, don't mind at all (or shuldn't mind).
10-08-2014, 07:28 PM   #188
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,037
This entire thread has been a very interesting read. I have been following on a daily basis. Immediately before Ron launched this thread, I had decided to essentially go AF - especially for everything over 85mm. So, I am in the process of selling a number of my MF lenses, aiming to acquire a 60-250. If I am going this route, I was thinking of also picking up a K5IIs also - to use the increased AF capability.

This thread has me re-evaluating my thinking on the body. I am now considering that even though I really like the 16MP sensor - and really do not need the additional pixels, the additional functionality of the K3 brings (better -3ev, AF, WB, might be more appropriate and just call everything good. I really don't need the 24MP, but I have an additional 3TB drive that I picked up a month ago for under $100, so storage isn't a concern. I'll just swap and upgrade my lenses, then just wait a bit longer and watch the K3's price drop. The body is the least of my problems.



10-08-2014, 11:48 PM   #189
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You're not getting it... Klaus says right on his site...you cannot use this Photzone data for comparing sensors.. I'm willing to bet he doesn't even use the same version of the testing software two years apart. You're not thinking this through here. When you lift data from someone's site.. surely you have to take under advisement the limitations in the testing procedure noted by the tester.

All Klaus guarantees is that the tests are constant for that sensor, with the lenses tested, with that camera body.

Quick... someone say "Don't call me Shirely""
It seems obvious that when testing lenses primarilly that having a fairly different sensor (like a 10MP or 24MP) the max resolution figures for the lenses will be different and so one should beware and should not consider that a lens tested on a 10MP sensor is inferior, just due to the sensor.

We can even see slight difference between different sensors of same resolution. But as I said, slight differences.

You whole point is things cannot ever compared at all. I say differently, I say that you have to be carefull and to interpret numbers with a grain of salt. I mean after all the conclusion you can get from the raw numbers in photozones are fairly similar from thoses of image ressources. Just thoses image resources are both lower.

I mean if it was only a 5% increase, it is in the marging of error. but a 36% increase for Photozone, a 24% increase for imaging resources show both time a noticable increase.

After we could spend days arguing on one thing or another.

And still it doesn't change anything to the way one should relate to this. Does he need it or not, depending of the usage... Yes ? No ? Tick the right one !
10-09-2014, 02:10 AM   #190
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,645
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
This entire thread has been a very interesting read. I have been following on a daily basis. Immediately before Ron launched this thread, I had decided to essentially go AF - especially for everything over 85mm. So, I am in the process of selling a number of my MF lenses, aiming to acquire a 60-250. If I am going this route, I was thinking of also picking up a K5IIs also - to use the increased AF capability.

This thread has me re-evaluating my thinking on the body. I am now considering that even though I really like the 16MP sensor - and really do not need the additional pixels, the additional functionality of the K3 brings (better -3ev, AF, WB, might be more appropriate and just call everything good. I really don't need the 24MP, but I have an additional 3TB drive that I picked up a month ago for under $100, so storage isn't a concern. I'll just swap and upgrade my lenses, then just wait a bit longer and watch the K3's price drop. The body is the least of my problems.

Well good choice on the 60-250. Funny how you conclude from this thread to go to K-3. I think there are great packages in the USA now for the K-3. Much cheaper then we get overhere.
10-09-2014, 06:30 AM   #191
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,390
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
It seems obvious that when testing lenses primarilly that having a fairly different sensor (like a 10MP or 24MP) the max resolution figures for the lenses will be different and so one should beware and should not consider that a lens tested on a 10MP sensor is inferior, just due to the sensor.

We can even see slight difference between different sensors of same resolution. But as I said, slight differences.

You whole point is things cannot ever compared at all. I say differently, I say that you have to be carefull and to interpret numbers with a grain of salt. I mean after all the conclusion you can get from the raw numbers in photozones are fairly similar from thoses of image ressources. Just thoses image resources are both lower.

I mean if it was only a 5% increase, it is in the marging of error. but a 36% increase for Photozone, a 24% increase for imaging resources show both time a noticable increase.

After we could spend days arguing on one thing or another.

And still it doesn't change anything to the way one should relate to this. Does he need it or not, depending of the usage... Yes ? No ? Tick the right one !
By the way, Photozone claims the Nex7 has the same resolution as the IR tests on a D800. If you believe that, you should be snapping one of those up. I guess the thing with Imaging Resources is they make their test images available. I'd like to see the test images from photozone so I can see for myself, that test number i just so out of whack with everything I've seen to date. Getting 3600 lw/ph on a sensor that only has 4000 lines would be spectacular. That's a 90% efficiency. Unless it's on a Canon model I haven't checked out, no one else is over 80. The K-3 is 2700 lw/ph on 4000 pixels. Something is not right.

If you left out the word noticeable... I'd probably agree. As I said, photography tends to go in halves and doubles. I'd argue even a 36% increase is negligible. It is on that term that this has gotten stuck. You say you can see, it, I say it's a saw off.

But you're right it comes down to a yes no decision for the purchaser that probably doesn't depend on IQ at this point.
My opinion would be as stated above, make your decision on the other features and look at the extra resolution as a bonus feature, personally I wouldn't recommend buying for the extra resolution because 16 MP is already quite good. We have sold many prints taken with 10, 14 and 16 MP cameras... but the new AF system to me is the big deal in this camera.

Last edited by normhead; 10-09-2014 at 06:35 AM.
10-09-2014, 06:55 AM   #192
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,341
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
It seems obvious that when testing lenses primarilly that having a fairly different sensor (like a 10MP or 24MP) the max resolution figures for the lenses will be different and so one should beware and should not consider that a lens tested on a 10MP sensor is inferior, just due to the sensor.

We can even see slight difference between different sensors of same resolution. But as I said, slight differences.

You whole point is things cannot ever compared at all. I say differently, I say that you have to be carefull and to interpret numbers with a grain of salt. I mean after all the conclusion you can get from the raw numbers in photozones are fairly similar from thoses of image ressources. Just thoses image resources are both lower.

I mean if it was only a 5% increase, it is in the marging of error. but a 36% increase for Photozone, a 24% increase for imaging resources show both time a noticable increase.

After we could spend days arguing on one thing or another.

And still it doesn't change anything to the way one should relate to this. Does he need it or not, depending of the usage... Yes ? No ? Tick the right one !
The basic question is at what size viewing/printing the difference can be seen and how ideal the circumstances need to be before you can actually see the difference. Maybe printing 40 inches on long side is enough that you can see a difference, but I don't usually print that big. You also have to work a lot harder to get 24 megapixel images pixel sharp than you do 10 or 16 megapixel images.

I still prefer the K3 to the K5 II/K-01, but it really isn't due to the extra megapixels, but due to the other things the K3 offers.
10-09-2014, 07:17 AM   #193
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,645
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I still prefer the K3 to the K5 II/K-01, but it really isn't due to the extra megapixels, but due to the other things the K3 offers.
I wouldn't mind having all those futures coming with 16 megapixels.
10-09-2014, 07:27 AM   #194
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,341
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
I wouldn't mind having all those futures coming with 16 megapixels.
I don't see that happening. The biggest issue is the market place. Hard to sell flagship 16 megapixel cameras against Nikon when the D3200 has 24 megapixels. People aren't stupid and the "know" that 24 is more than 16 and therefore must be better.
10-09-2014, 07:32 AM   #195
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,645
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't see that happening. The biggest issue is the market place. Hard to sell flagship 16 megapixel cameras against Nikon when the D3200 has 24 megapixels. People aren't stupid and the "know" that 24 is more than 16 and therefore must be better.
bummer but yes, unless it's a D4s.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, auto, camera, comparison, computer, course, dslr, filter, head, image, jpg, k-3, k-5, k3, k5, lens, lenses, life, medium, megapixel, people, photography, pictures, post, quality, resolution, steve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough? dmnf Photographic Technique 10 05-15-2013 09:43 AM
Pentax WG-2 Waterproof 16-Megapixel Fl_Gulfer Pentax Price Watch 3 03-10-2013 12:35 PM
is 16-45 mm wide enough? boone Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 01-26-2011 12:56 PM
[Auto-ISO] so, is the K5 and Kr brave enough to use max iso? Reportage Pentax K-5 13 10-24-2010 03:30 PM
Is the 16-50mm sharp enough? lbenac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-09-2009 03:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top